Hope you guys are interested in this and like reading that stuff. I d love to see some questions on this and comments.
If anyone can tell me what other clues I missed that prove my idea here wrong please help me out with this. so: why cant that be?
I know it is good common for wave traders of all kind to asume at first so draw the correction channel like you did in the update (1-2-3 were endpoint of 3 takes out the endpoint of 1 and all are happy).
But what about this?
I miss the deeper correction after the breakout/impulse
and I looked for clues how to identify very early how the channel is doing to be formed.
Asuming the beautiful idea that this fractural and structural wave thing is nature
and the nature is repeating itself then it should be fact that
> identifying a given early enbryo in development as a chicken embryo (which is in early stages not easy because they do not look very different from early fish/humans/horses...) may be hard and the observer may say "we need to see how it develops and it will tell us" (like the wave traders).
> but: the chicken embryo knows exactly what it will become and what it does at what time to become a proud chicken.
> read: structure is predefined / the result is predefined. so find the clue.
And my clue comes from the impulse itself (see area, and see the fact that we know that a deeper pullback at one point of the other is just a healthy sign) not from my fantasy.
Thanks for likes but more thanks for comments on that.
People tend to "like"(even worse: "agree") with every blibb and blabb...
If anyone can tell me what other clues I missed that prove my idea here wrong please help me out with this. so: why cant that be?
I know it is good common for wave traders of all kind to asume at first so draw the correction channel like you did in the update (1-2-3 were endpoint of 3 takes out the endpoint of 1 and all are happy).
But what about this?
I miss the deeper correction after the breakout/impulse
and I looked for clues how to identify very early how the channel is doing to be formed.
Asuming the beautiful idea that this fractural and structural wave thing is nature
and the nature is repeating itself then it should be fact that
> identifying a given early enbryo in development as a chicken embryo (which is in early stages not easy because they do not look very different from early fish/humans/horses...) may be hard and the observer may say "we need to see how it develops and it will tell us" (like the wave traders).
> but: the chicken embryo knows exactly what it will become and what it does at what time to become a proud chicken.
> read: structure is predefined / the result is predefined. so find the clue.
And my clue comes from the impulse itself (see area, and see the fact that we know that a deeper pullback at one point of the other is just a healthy sign) not from my fantasy.
Thanks for likes but more thanks for comments on that.
People tend to "like"(even worse: "agree") with every blibb and blabb...